As an artist, now I have to go out of my way to say, "You can copy this however you like"? Alright, that's fine with me. I just wanna sell enough of my CDs to cover costs (or just mp3.comize them). I'll make my money doing performances - which is also much more fulfilling.
Oh yeah, and the RIAA sucks. I'm not a member of any musicians unions either - not since SOCAN had all blank media including CDRs taxed here in Canada.
If the above post doen't make it glaringly obvious, slashdot needs a spell checker.
According to an article in Info World, the World Intellectual Property Organization indicates that the WIPO Copyright Treaty is scheduled to go into effect in March of 2002. The treaty "is designed to protect the rights of composers, artists, writers, and others whose work is distributed over the Internet or other digital media." It also makes reference of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty which "specifically protects the digital-media rights of producers and performers of sound recordings"." This is not a "new" treaty; rather it's the old one, which says much the same thing as the DMCA and was used to justify the passage of the DMCA. Now the same provisions will be in effect across many countries.
There is no organization in Canada trying harder to justify its existence and appease its critics than the Canadian Wheat Board. In a political climate of increasingly free markets, the monopoly wheat seller is barrelling toward a life-or-death battle, and its recent actions show it has decided it won't go down without a fight.
The Wheat Board, which sells $4.5-billion of Canada's wheat and barley annually, is facing a relentless barrage of criticism from a small number of vocal Prairie farmers. The growing vehemence of their complaints has sown doubts in the minds of a far larger number of farmers, who are becoming more quietly unsure whether the board's sales monopoly is the best model.
Meanwhile, U.S. farm groups have filed yet another challenge to the board's sales practices, arguing its monopoly amounts to an unfair trade practice.
The board has decided to address its critics with a new study on the economics of selling through a monopoly single desk versus an open competitive system. Numerous studies of this sort have been tried before, with entirely contradictory findings. All have been attacked for bias or dismissed for weak methodology, leaving the debate unsettled in farm circles.
This time, the board hopes to produce something many more will accept. It has commissioned University of Saskatchewan professor Richard Gray to assess how effective the Wheat Board's monopoly selling actually is, comparing its returns with the returns farmers would have seen under identical market conditions without the board.
Prof. Gray has posted his methodology for much debate on the Internet (with a link from the Wheat Board's Web site). He is still refining his system before actually producing a number, expected later this summer. The final number will attribute a value to the Wheat Board's work as a dollar amount per tonne of wheat.
Wheat Board vice-president Earl Geddes, who is also a farmer, says the board will have to accept the study's conclusions, even if they happen to show a disappointingly marginal benefit from its existence. "If the benefit is not there, we should shut down." He admits the board is taking a risk commissioning the study without knowing the conclusions will be supportive.
There are more risks looming. The board has also agreed to let the Auditor-General of Canada go through its books for the first time. Auditors have been working for months, and a report is expected this fall. Until then, the board is crossing its fingers that the report won't fuel accusations of excessive overhead costs or poor administration.
The Wheat Board has no choice but to commission studies, open its books and address criticisms these days. After decades of a remote lack of interest in farmers' complaints, the board has awakened to the risks posed by a continuing political debate about whether it should lose its monopoly control. Only by becoming more responsive to farmers and more open to scrutiny can the board hope to win over those still sitting on the fence.
The change of attitude began in 1998 when new legislation was adopted to let the board switch from government control to farmer control. It is now governed by a 15-member board, with 10 members elected by farmers. Mr. Geddes argues the change in board control has been an impetus for bigger changes.
Last year, for example, the board introduced pricing options that allow farmers to lock in fixed returns or try to beat the board's pool return. Farmers can lock in a fixed price before the beginning of the crop year by taking a contract based on a U.S. futures price. "This is a function of the fact the organization is now run by 10 farmers," Mr. Geddes says. "They want a price-fixing mechanism before they plant their crops."
This year, about 500 farmers representing about 150,000 tonnes of wheat signed up to sell under these contracts. Mr. Geddes believes these new flexible options will reduce demands from farmers to organize their own sales in the United States. "What will cool is the desire to put your wheat in a truck and truck it across the border," he says. "Had the Wheat Board done this seven or eight years ago, when all that border pressure was on, you could have addressed it with this selling mechanism."
In an effort to address another criticism, the board has begun publishing the salaries of its senior executives, similar to public companies. (For those interested, president and chief executive officer Greg Arason was paid $250,000 last year.)
It is no accident that these changes began in the late 1990s, as governments became increasingly supportive of unhindered markets and businesslike service models. In such a climate, discontented farmers have found more political support for change. The Canadian Alliance, for example, promised in last fall's election to make the Wheat Board a voluntary option for farmers.
The Wheat Board has been forced to concede that the pleasant "all-for-one" justification for pooled selling falls on deaf ears these days unless it produces better financial results. Now the board is trying to prove that it does. The next few months will supply critical ammunition to the debate.
Slashdot Mirror
Imagine a beowolf cluster of these! Damn that would be sweet!!!!!
Imagine a boewolf cluster of those babies!!! Can someone post the link to goatsex?
Imagine a beowolf cluster of these!
As an artist, now I have to go out of my way to say, "You can copy this however you like"? Alright, that's fine with me. I just wanna sell enough of my CDs to cover costs (or just mp3.comize them). I'll make my money doing performances - which is also much more fulfilling. Oh yeah, and the RIAA sucks. I'm not a member of any musicians unions either - not since SOCAN had all blank media including CDRs taxed here in Canada. If the above post doen't make it glaringly obvious, slashdot needs a spell checker.
According to an article in Info World, the World Intellectual Property Organization indicates that the WIPO Copyright Treaty is scheduled to go into effect in March of 2002. The treaty "is designed to protect the rights of composers, artists, writers, and others whose work is distributed over the Internet or other digital media." It also makes reference of the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty which "specifically protects the digital-media rights of producers and performers of sound recordings"." This is not a "new" treaty; rather it's the old one, which says much the same thing as the DMCA and was used to justify the passage of the DMCA. Now the same provisions will be in effect across many countries.
Imagine a beowolf cluster of these? Man that would kick ass! PS goatsex??? whats that all "aboot"?
Imagine a Beowolf cluster of these? SWEET!!
Thong - th -thong thong thong!!! opps wrong Cisco :)
A flame in your name.
I request a flme in your name.
There is no organization in Canada trying harder to justify its existence and appease its critics than the Canadian Wheat Board. In a political climate of increasingly free markets, the monopoly wheat seller is barrelling toward a life-or-death battle, and its recent actions show it has decided it won't go down without a fight. The Wheat Board, which sells $4.5-billion of Canada's wheat and barley annually, is facing a relentless barrage of criticism from a small number of vocal Prairie farmers. The growing vehemence of their complaints has sown doubts in the minds of a far larger number of farmers, who are becoming more quietly unsure whether the board's sales monopoly is the best model. Meanwhile, U.S. farm groups have filed yet another challenge to the board's sales practices, arguing its monopoly amounts to an unfair trade practice. The board has decided to address its critics with a new study on the economics of selling through a monopoly single desk versus an open competitive system. Numerous studies of this sort have been tried before, with entirely contradictory findings. All have been attacked for bias or dismissed for weak methodology, leaving the debate unsettled in farm circles. This time, the board hopes to produce something many more will accept. It has commissioned University of Saskatchewan professor Richard Gray to assess how effective the Wheat Board's monopoly selling actually is, comparing its returns with the returns farmers would have seen under identical market conditions without the board. Prof. Gray has posted his methodology for much debate on the Internet (with a link from the Wheat Board's Web site). He is still refining his system before actually producing a number, expected later this summer. The final number will attribute a value to the Wheat Board's work as a dollar amount per tonne of wheat. Wheat Board vice-president Earl Geddes, who is also a farmer, says the board will have to accept the study's conclusions, even if they happen to show a disappointingly marginal benefit from its existence. "If the benefit is not there, we should shut down." He admits the board is taking a risk commissioning the study without knowing the conclusions will be supportive. There are more risks looming. The board has also agreed to let the Auditor-General of Canada go through its books for the first time. Auditors have been working for months, and a report is expected this fall. Until then, the board is crossing its fingers that the report won't fuel accusations of excessive overhead costs or poor administration. The Wheat Board has no choice but to commission studies, open its books and address criticisms these days. After decades of a remote lack of interest in farmers' complaints, the board has awakened to the risks posed by a continuing political debate about whether it should lose its monopoly control. Only by becoming more responsive to farmers and more open to scrutiny can the board hope to win over those still sitting on the fence. The change of attitude began in 1998 when new legislation was adopted to let the board switch from government control to farmer control. It is now governed by a 15-member board, with 10 members elected by farmers. Mr. Geddes argues the change in board control has been an impetus for bigger changes. Last year, for example, the board introduced pricing options that allow farmers to lock in fixed returns or try to beat the board's pool return. Farmers can lock in a fixed price before the beginning of the crop year by taking a contract based on a U.S. futures price. "This is a function of the fact the organization is now run by 10 farmers," Mr. Geddes says. "They want a price-fixing mechanism before they plant their crops." This year, about 500 farmers representing about 150,000 tonnes of wheat signed up to sell under these contracts. Mr. Geddes believes these new flexible options will reduce demands from farmers to organize their own sales in the United States. "What will cool is the desire to put your wheat in a truck and truck it across the border," he says. "Had the Wheat Board done this seven or eight years ago, when all that border pressure was on, you could have addressed it with this selling mechanism." In an effort to address another criticism, the board has begun publishing the salaries of its senior executives, similar to public companies. (For those interested, president and chief executive officer Greg Arason was paid $250,000 last year.) It is no accident that these changes began in the late 1990s, as governments became increasingly supportive of unhindered markets and businesslike service models. In such a climate, discontented farmers have found more political support for change. The Canadian Alliance, for example, promised in last fall's election to make the Wheat Board a voluntary option for farmers. The Wheat Board has been forced to concede that the pleasant "all-for-one" justification for pooled selling falls on deaf ears these days unless it produces better financial results. Now the board is trying to prove that it does. The next few months will supply critical ammunition to the debate.